LT COL N K GHAI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the disposal of his statutory complaints dated 18th January, 2002 by an order of the Defence Ministry dated 8th August, 2003 and statutory complaints dated 7th December, 2002 which was disposed of by the Ministry of Defence on 23rd August, 2004 The preliminary grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his outstanding ACRs his case has been dealt with perfunctorily and without application of mind. He has complained that the relevant paragraphs by which statutory complaints have been disposed of by two different officers by and large read almost identically. There is merit in the plea of the petitioner. We have been observing that in a large number of cases the statutory complaints are being disposed of by identically worded orders by the Under Secretary of the Government of India. Except for change of the year and ACRs, the orders by and large read the same. We are reproducing several orders of identical nature. The relevant portions of various orders passed from time to time by the under Secretary, Ministry of Defence read as follows:-

(3.) In all the relevant paragraphs, of the disposal of the statutory complaints the reasoning in each of the disposals except the year of the CR is almost similar and discloses persistent and consistent non- application of mind in the disposal of statutory complaints. The process of statutory complaints have been provided to the personnel of the armed forces so as to ensure that by and large the grievances of the armed forces are redressed within the system itself. A statutory complaint made to the Ministry of Defence is the last resort of all Army personnel. The Indian Army which sets high standards for itself and its personnel thereof deserve to be treated fairly by the Government of India in disposing of the statutory complaints. Regrettably a perusal of various orders extracted above clearly show that there has been non-application of mind and stereotyped and routine orders are being passed. This leads not only frustration among the armed personnel but leads to more litigation such as the present one. In the present case the grievance of the petitioner is further accentuated by the fact that the reviewing officer of the petitioner had given the following comments about the petitioner. Brief comments (a) A tall soldierly built, correctly dressed officer who is physically and mentally robust. Intelligent quick on the uptake and methodical officer who is professionally sound. Keen ot learn more, enthusiastic, responsible and dedicated. Trains and administers troops very well. Regimentally, cooperative and respectful. Happily married, keeps his personal affairs correctly. A throughly dependable officer. (b) A tall and thinly built Maj Naresh Kumar Ghai, is a dignified and industrious officer, who conducts himself admiringly in all Group and situations. He is upright in his dealings and displays a high sense of sincerity and honesty of purpose. He is intelligent and possesses analytical mind, is dependable and willingly accepts responsibilities even beyond the call of routine obligations. The officer is well read, possesses a none average managerial skills. Professionally sound, he can express himself clearly of of concisely both verbally and in writing.